« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Former Prosecutor: Disbanding LA USA Public Corruption Unit "Sends A Message"
Yesterday on TPM, Josh noted a report (sub. req.) in The Recorder, a California legal news publication, that the U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles, Thomas O'Brien, had disbanded the office's public integrity unit.
The 17 attorneys in that section of the office "will be redistributed among the major fraud and organized crime sections, which now will have a mandate to battle corruption," the Recorder reported. The office's spokesman tried to put as bright a face on it as possible, saying "Our view is that it's a significant enhancement of the public corruption unit. We now have over 70 lawyers who essentially will be able to step up to the plate."
That's clearly some weak spin. But I asked a former prosecutor from the office's public integrity unit to give me a sense of what this means.
That former prosecutor didn't think the move was "politically motivated," instead attributing the move to a desire to improve the office's statistics. U.S. attorneys frequently experience pressure to increase the number of prosecutions as evidence of performance. Remember that Justice Department officials used former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam's lower immigration case numbers as justification for her firing (ignoring her office's concentration on busting illegal immigration rings). "Public corruption cases are very difficult and very time consuming," the former prosecutor explained. "A lot of that doesn't result in a statistic."
Of course, that doesn't mean that the cases don't have a disproportionate impact. "The fact of an investigation into the earmark process [i.e. the Duke Cunningham scandal and by extension the investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)]," really had a huge impact in opening up debate of how that process has been corrupted by money. That doesn't happen if you're not looking at it every day.
"My concern is the message that it sends," the lawyer continued. "The existence of the section, the fact that talented, smart, aggressive prosecutors are looking at cases, sends a message to public officials that they need to be careful." Now another message has been sent.
The former prosecutor didn't think that this move would derail any of the investigations ongoing in the unit -- such as the Lewis investigation, which has stalled at times. Only a number of the larger U.S. attorney offices in the country have a public integrity unit (like, as Eliot Spitzer knows full well, the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan).
O'Brien has headed Los Angeles' U.S. Attorney's Office since July of 2007. The former longterm U.S.A., Debra Yang, left abruptly in late 2006, a departure that frequently aroused suspicion in the context of the U.S. attorney firings' investigation. O'Brien had been the Chief of the Criminal Division in that office before taking over.
But the importance of such units is in the creation of new cases, the attorney explained: "The corruption cases are driven more by the prosecutors than by law enforcement. The assistant U.S. attorneys are following these issues and call the FBI when they see something and say 'maybe we should take a look at this.' Without that core group of prosecutors looking at that stuff, you may lose those opportunities."
The FBI has made public corruption a major priority (Attorney General Michael Mukasey has been less clear on that points), and O'Brien's spokesman stressed to The Recorder that "if the FBI has got a good case they want to investigate, there are still plenty of people in the U.S. attorney's office who will want to run with it." That may be the case. But all the same, crooked California politicians can breathe a little easier.
Josh
Zachary
Hey I thought we had record numbers of lawyers going through law schools over the past decade? Are we seriously lacking in the need to have lawyers perform both of these tasks as an important effort to protect the publics integrity? I know just because we have a lot of lawyers does not necessairly mean that we have good ones who would take jobs such as these but is it understated given the crimes which have been exposed over the last couple of years to not be a little dismayed that their eye has been diverted from the proverbial ball?
March 18, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
We will enhance ethics by disbanding the ethics oversight. OK.
- Why wasn't this "move" nation wide, and isolated to Los Angeles?
- What's DoJ OPR say about this?
March 18, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
When detailed to an ethics-division, presumably this "pressure" would be eliminated: Their charter, mission, and performance would be evaluated by other criteria.
March 18, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The action to disband the corruption unit contradicts the FBI's opposite actions: Increasing numbers of FBI agents assigned to public corruption units. More FBI agents, with fewer prosecutors to prosecute those corruption cases?!?
- What information did the unit have that the prosecutors were openly discussing, which someone didn't want competent legal counsel/prosecutors discussing?
- Any plans of DOJ OPR to review the US Atty emails assigned to this unit and do some follow-up reviews on their concerns with lack of support for prosecutions?
The public disclosures have been that this corruption unit was slow-rolling things.
- Was there evidence that significant corruption cases were slowrolled before and after the election?
- How many corruption cases against Republicans are getting slow rolled on the excuse of "elections are just around the corner", and limit the amount of GOP losses in Congress?
Elections are always "just around the corner": That's what the Framers intended.
March 18, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what we get when policial meddling in law enforcement/prosecutions isn't subject to an impeachment investigation: More dubious assertions that the explanation has everything to do with non political factors. This sounds more like the US Attys office segretating the witnesses who Congress might subpoena, and reduce the e-mail cross talk which Congress could review.
March 18, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to see:
A. More discussion from the Executive Office of US Attys. If the "downsizing"-argument were true, then we should have seen a reduction in the size of the EOUSA liaision with other law enforcement on public corruption cases;
B. DoJ-wide data, caseloads, and investigation numbers; until then, this is a dubious assertion:
There are several issues which may not support the above assertion, inter alia:
1. The investigation which may or may not be coordinated with the US Atty. The FBI does things on their own and the the US Atty may not be informed. Sometimes FBI agents will reject information because there is a standing policy not to target a specific, low-interest area; or they may have been told in advance to not spend time on a "low priority" area.
2. The US prosecutor declination decisions. The FBI may develop evidence, spend time on a case, and devote substantial resources to something that doesn't pan out, and the US Atty refuses to prosecute. Fitzgerald in re Libby reminded us of some considerations: Can you prove it, is there evidence; and does the prosecutor want to charge them, or let the case develop into something more.
3. DoJ policy unrelated to politics may be driving investigators and law enforcement, which in trun drive US Atty prosecutions. Recall the publicly disclosed PPT slides which DoJ and the US Attys coordinate with investigators? (Ex: the immigration prosecutions in Arizona, in re US Atty Firings)
4. Political considerations: If none of the above explain the changes in prosecutions, then we're back to where we were on the US Atty firings: The corruption cases have nothing to do with independent DoJ policy, US Atty decisions, or the law enforcement, but with political considerations.
When saying "corruption cases" need to clarify:
- Are we talking the resources spent to develop that case, which the FBI may coordinate in response to an increase in public corruption; or
- Are we talking the declination decision where the US Atty makes to prosecute/drop a case, after the FBI and US Atty have agreed to develop that case for prosecution; or
- Are we talking about the policies the US Atty promulgates related to their standing positions on declination decisions; or which cases they're going to put more emphasis?
March 18, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, they had to disband the unit in order to enhance it. Hmmmm, where have I heard that logic before...?
March 18, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may be that the LA public corruption was falling, but this disbandment fails to address the growing mess in DC. Indeed, as economic conditions tighten and the pubilc budgets tighten, the incentive for public corruption increases. Why weren't these US Attys, who had an expertise in public corruption, re-assigned to DC as a single, functioning, integrated prosecuting unit? Follow-up needed:
It may be true that these US Attorneys were focused on public corruption, but that doesn't mean the FBI was waiting for the US Atty to call them. Cases don't depend on the US Attorney notifying the FBI; Investigators do things on their own. However, the explanation doesn't address why the unit was disbanded; nor does it explain, with the disbandment of the unit, where the FBI will take their public corruption information.
- Have the number of FBI agents/investigators assigned to support these US Attornes in Los Angeles also been reduced? Look at the agents-assigned manpower numbers since 2005.
- Have the cases been consolidated into a regional area, larger than the current US Atty jurisdication? Perhaps there's a larger DoJ reorganization under foot to create some confusion for the next Administration.
Sounds like some FBI deception to avoid processing complaints which the US Atty has not expressly declined; and FBI Supervisory Agents are making declination decisions which belong with the US Attys.
- DoJ OPR?
- Are currently/formerly assigned DoJ personnel asking us to believe the FBI agents might have substantial evidence of public corruption which the US Attys refuse to prosecute?
- Where are the FBI agents putting this evidence; or are they making excuses to not accept the original information/complaint related to public corruption?
Before an investigator can refuse to investigate, they have to be aware of some information which they refuse to act on. However, there may be a standing policy to not accept information, much less investigate.
- Has Congres received reports suggesting that investigators are not accepting information related to public corruption?
March 18, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
testing
Would it be possible that some California state statutes have been violated that would give a state prosecutor jurisdiction in some part of this "mess" . Recall that the former chief of station FBI San Diego publically stated that he could guarantee that the termination of US Attorney Carol Lamm was politically motivated. Recall too that former Chairman jERRY Lewis let go some one hundred investigators that were looking into MZM et al.
One might hope that California State Attorney General Brown might have an interest in protecting his state from criminal wrong doing associated with Lamm's dismissal .
March 18, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al,
Take a look at This.
March 19, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
This may be of interest:
March 19, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another approach is to focus on the CA State Attorney standards of conduct; and explore which supervisory standards have been violated, if any, by the US Attorneys assigned, and licensed to practice law in CA. One issue in re prosecutors is evidence handling:
- Have the US Attorneys attempted to quietly handle prosecutions with private agreements, and not provided to the court the nature of the agreements or the evidence of that illegal actdivity?
- Is there evidence of criminal activity which the US Attys have not properly handled; is evidence of crimes against the State of CA, not just the US, but the US Atty has not provided that evidence to local authorities after refusing to prosecute in Federal Court?
March 19, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe there is evidence the US Attys in Los Angeles threatened prosecution of those who had evidence of GOP corruption:
That could be happening. Perhaps the prosecutors have impermissibly sought subpeonas not to engage in lawful prosecutorial-related actions, but to identify people engaging in lawful discussion of public information related to illegal US government activity.
- Have any of the US Attys threatened contempt proceedings against other attorneys or members of the public for publicly commenting on alleged illegal activity by the US Attys?
- Have any of the US Attys asserted that "information pubilcly discussed is classified and evidence of illegal espionage or a state secret"; yet, the information, in truth, which they know or should know, came from open, non-classified sources and cannot be hidden or shielded?
- How much of the FBI's NSL abuses did the US Attys in Los Angeles know about?
Perhaps some of the US Attys in Los Angeles attempted to make direct contact with Guantanamo prisoners, and did not coordinate their communications with the prisoners' counsel. See
March 19, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's an open question how much of the "disbandment" is designed to hide evidence that the US Attys assigned to Los Angeles knew of, but failed to mitigate, alleged incompetence within the US Attys office or supervision.
March 19, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
These are some of the standards which may have been violated, prompting the US Attys to reshuffle, and muddy the waters.
March 19, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The issues may not be about the US Attys in Los Angeles, but what they are aware, but have not prosecuted. For example, here is one sweeping standard that does address corruption; and opens the door for the State AG to review issues.
Another one is this:
March 19, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps someone, which the US Attys have interviewed as a witness, was a whistleblower, but the US attys compromised their identity to the GOP for retalation:
If someone is talkinga bout publicly available information, but the US Attys are pretending that this is "only available" using "classified sources," then the US Attys may be involved with intimdiation to not gather evidence, but to identify by name those engaged in lawful activity. This may be a ruse:
- To what extent have dubious asswertions of "illegal disclosures" been incorrectly attributed to public persons who are commenting on public information related to alleged war crimes, FISA violations, rendition, prisoner abuse, or US law firms/contractors allegedly complicit with those illegal activities?
- Are law firms allegedly connected through the White House and DOJ using their positions of influence to promise US attys future outside employment in exchange for US Attys providing information about public persons discussion alleged law firms' complicit with war crimes planning or illegal rendition-related actdivities?
If this is happening, this would be a serious breach of ethics, and a betrayal of the oath of office. US Attys swear an oath to the US Constitution to include all treaty obligations. If, what is alleged is true, then the US Attys may be knowingly violating their oath of office today -- in not prosecuting contractors, law firms, and individuals implicated in war crimes -- in exchange for promises of future employment with these outside GOP-connected law firms.
March 19, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
With A Republican Govenor, Senator Feinstein and six of CREW's Most Scummy . . . There is no reason to look into malfeasences.
March 18, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent question:
Answer: Yes.
Until we get more information, unclear the specific legal issues DOJ may be looking at which State AG may have an interest in prosecuting. As we've seen with the NSA litigation, US federal government's decision not to prosecute does not oblige the State AG's to follow suit.
Here are some idea of CA State AG interest areas, but the right answer is to look at the State Code: Sure. Try This search with "corruption".
March 19, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Testing ,
Would some organization such as CREW , ( Melanie Sloane's outfit ) have standing to brng a lawsuit under the que warranto deal to force discovery & testimony regarding the LA Disbandment?Do we need a California CREW office ?
And if so- how do we help Melanie get this thing into court where the California State Attorney General has to get involved ?
"SEND LAWYERS, GUNS, & MONEY THE SH**T HAS HIT THE FAN !"
Warren Zevon
March 19, 2008 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would guess that if someone were to trace the power lines back to the core generator that spawned this wholesale revision of LA's US ATTY' office, it would lead to the most powerful people in California, and by default, in the world.
If they can keep Lewis' butt out of the sling, they must be uber-powerful. But who are "they?" Who is protecting Lewis when others around him fall like autumn leaves?
They couldn't save Cunningham,or Doolittle or Pombo, from and their respectrive, inevitable political crashes, but somehow, Jerry Lewis has much mnore protection from those "powers that be."
Who's protecting Lewis? Just where does his immunity come from? I think if someone could dissect the protection process, and follow that trail of bread-crumbs to their pernicious source(s), we might all have a better idea of who's REALLY in charge.
Find out who has the power to protect Lewis, and we will know where the real axis of evil has its fulcrum.
March 19, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Do we need a California CREW office?"
Great idea, but how about one in every state? Personally, I think there ought to be a "Citizens for Respnsible Ethics in Des Moines" (CRED?) or Topeka (CRET?), what Melanie Sloan and her co-CREWers have created would be a great model for a new-age non-partisan league providing a public watchdog platform across the nation.
Watchdogs, Unite!
and Viva la Blogs...
March 19, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
www.votenic.com
Poll Results Now Instant!
New vids, and New Polls Posted Weekly!
March 19, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
testing ,
How & when can we get the Cali State Attorney General involved in this ? Would a FOIA regarding the disbandment yield any discovery that would force jERRY Brown to take this up ..Can we put up a Paypal request on some progressive website to solicit funds to hire a Cali lawyer to start the ball rolling to get us to threshold needed to force the state of California to get involved in this - who do we hire , lets get this started -how hard can this be ?
This could be our can opener for this can of worms , could it not ?
March 19, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can see the "real" reason for the disbanding of the Public Corruption at http://fraud-corruption-mnat.townhall.com/default.aspx
All any reporter has to do is ask Mukasey or O'Brien about the eToys perjury and fraud case or the if and when Colm Connolly was an issue referred to the OPR or Public Integrity Section.
We spent 30 minutes (again) with the FBI explaining the documentation of fraud and corruption. The Agent remarked, how can you expect us to do anything if the FIX IS IN?
To power and corruption speak Truth.
Stand up and fight for your American Way of Life
OR
LET IT GO!
April 23, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Things are heating up
July 8, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink